Those should only be allowed if there is a reasonable basis for believing that the person will have minimal interaction with the general population. And they should never be allowed for any person that will be attending or working at public schools (including colleges/universities), or for any healthcare worker. The logic is the same as restrictions on public smoking: Your choices about your health cease to be soley your choice when they start having direct negative consequences on the health of others around you without their choice.

Rumi wrote:

Problem is, most of the vaccines start being administered when you are still a minor.
Most of them even as an infant.

So if your parents/legal guardian deny you your vaccines, they can - and most times will - be viewed as neglecting their responsibility to take care of you.
They need to have your best interest in mind, and denying your vaccinations is not in your best interest.

Vaccination has been proven to be the best way we know to control the spread of many dangerous diseases. While some people with compromised immune systems cannot be vaccinated, I think it makes sense for all children to receive the standard vaccines unless there are medical reasons - basedon medical science, not conspiracy theories - not to administer them.

It's a part of living in a society - we give up total freedom fir the benefits of working, playing and living with other people. One unvaccinated child is a potential risk to herself, but a group of unvaccinated children are a serious risk to each other.

And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
- The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

shouldn't vaccines be like open source, so many pharma companies can produce them in total transparency so no one feels that there is some kind of conspiracy behind them?

How much more open source can you get? Let's look at the flu vaccine. The virus strains are selected by a multi-center, multi-national team after reviewing data that are somewhat accessible to the public (google CDC weekly influenza surveillance report, for example). Safety and efficacy trials of specific vaccines are reported at clinicaltrials.gov, and investigators usually provide associated data and publications. The CDC has a description of the various vaccination options and layman's explanations of how they're produced on their website. The vaccines are made by various manufacturers--I recall Fluarix (GSK), Flucelvax (Seqirus), and Fluzone (Sanofi) from last year.

"I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

Vaccines prove to work most of the time, but they are not scientific facts!

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think over the course of previous threads you've shown pretty thoroughly that either you're not being very serious in these sorts of discussions, or you don't have a good grasp of science.

Besides which, your statement doesn't even make any sense. You're admitting that vaccines are proven to work most of the time, and yet simultaneously claiming that their effectiveness is not a fact? C'mon, that's a blatantly self-contradictory position.

Ok, yes I am crew but in my real life world, I am also a paediatrician and no, I have not spelt it incorrectly!

Can I ask how many people who are anti-vax have seen a baby die from an entirely preventable disease?
How many of you have councelled parents, when you have exhausted all treatments for their baby?
How many of you have held a baby who is less than 2 weeks old, who has died in your arms?

Vaccines are tested, they are not part of big pharma, they save lives and prevent people like me, telling you that sadly your baby has died.

Ok, yes I am crew but in my real life world, I am also a paediatrician and no, I have not spelt it incorrectly!

Can I ask how many people who are anti-vax have seen a baby die from an entirely preventable disease?
How many of you have councelled parents, when you have exhausted all treatments for their baby?
How many of you have held a baby who is less than 2 weeks old, who has died in your arms?

Vaccines are tested, they are not part of big pharma, they save lives and prevent people like me, telling you that sadly your baby has died.

I was just listening to the story of someone's friend who contracted Hep B. He was born in a developing country and didn't get the full recommended vaccine series when he moved to the US as a child in the late 80's. Then he had to have some sort of procedure that required a blood transfusion, just around or before the 1990's. He found out about the Hep B when he got a checkup for what he thought was a mild viral infection in his early 30's. Scary

"I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

Q: Considering that rates of vaccine-preventable diseases are very low, my child is unlikely to get one of these diseases. Therefore, isn’t the benefit of vaccination also very low?

A: That’s a reasonable question. Statistically, the chances of any particular child getting measles, pertussis, or another vaccine-preventable disease might be low.

But you don’t wear a seatbelt because you expect to be in a serious accident; you wear it because you want to be protected in the unlikely event that you are. If you’re never in an accident, the benefit of wearing a seatbelt might be zero. But if you are, the consequences of not wearing it can be very high.

It’s the same with vaccines. Your child might never need the protection they offer, but you don’t want him to be lacking that protection if he ever does need it.

So vaccination is only for safety, It doesn't seem to be that serious!

Unless you plan to travel to some countries (like south africa, india) they would recommend you to take vaccines, because you have higher probability of getting sick there.

Vaccines prove to work most of the time, but they are not scientific facts!

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think over the course of previous threads you've shown pretty thoroughly that either you're not being very serious in these sorts of discussions, or you don't have a good grasp of science.
Besides which, your statement doesn't even make any sense. You're admitting that vaccines are proven to work most of the time, and yet simultaneously claiming that their effectiveness is not a fact? C'mon, that's a blatantly self-contradictory position.

They question is, do all vaccinated people never get any disease from what they have been vaccinated against? Just one person have the vaccine not working would make that not a scientific fact. A fact is something that can never be broken (like the sun rises from the east)!

Rumi wrote:

Q: Considering that rates of vaccine-preventable diseases are very low, my child is unlikely to get one of these diseases. Therefore, isn’t the benefit of vaccination also very low?

A: That’s a reasonable question. Statistically, the chances of any particular child getting measles, pertussis, or another vaccine-preventable disease might be low.

But you don’t wear a seatbelt because you expect to be in a serious accident; you wear it because you want to be protected in the unlikely event that you are. If you’re never in an accident, the benefit of wearing a seatbelt might be zero. But if you are, the consequences of not wearing it can be very high.

It’s the same with vaccines. Your child might never need the protection they offer, but you don’t want him to be lacking that protection if he ever does need it.

So vaccination is only for safety, It doesn't seem to be that serious!
Unless you plan to travel to some countries (like south africa, india) they would recommend you to take vaccines, because you have higher probability of getting sick there.

Vaccines prove to work most of the time, but they are not scientific facts!

Not trying to be offensive here, but I think over the course of previous threads you've shown pretty thoroughly that either you're not being very serious in these sorts of discussions, or you don't have a good grasp of science.Besides which, your statement doesn't even make any sense. You're admitting that vaccines are proven to work most of the time, and yet simultaneously claiming that their effectiveness is not a fact? C'mon, that's a blatantly self-contradictory position.

They question is, do all vaccinated people never get any disease from what they have been vaccinated against? Just one person have the vaccine not working would make that not a scientific fact. A fact is something that can never be broken (like the sun rises from the east)!

I don't know if you're trying to be a devil's advocate or whatever, but answers to every challenge you've posed can generally be found in vaccine FAQs everywhere. Not to mention there definitely were similar discussions in the past on .us since the main contributors there are easily triggered by mention of freedom, mandates, and autism.

"I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."

Hunter, even I'm not sure if you are just trolling now. There is a lot of information around about vaccines. They are not 100% for anyone, but at a population level, if you don't want people to get sick and die unnecessarily, you vaccinate everyone possible. it's a very, very obvious and clear cost/benefit equation. Want to reduce the very real risk of dying from multiple dieases? Get vaccinated.